I was in Toronto for the last few days, which is why my part of this BLOG has been more quiet than normal. Fortunately Canadian creators and audiences have continued to hold Sam Bulte and the Liberals feet to the fire on their lack of balance or ethics on critical cultural, Internet and technology law policy. (See Canadian Science Fiction author Cory Doctorow's note about the Candidates Debate the day earlier)
This issue was also included in the online version of Eye Weekly for January 12, 2006 (Look for "By the industry, for the industry").
The fact that she’s getting so close to those who fall under her jurisdiction has the indie community up in arms. Neil Leyton, of the label Fading Way Music, and John Bowker, co-owner of She Said Boom! record and book store, have launched an email campaign denouncing Bulte. Both are hoping NDP challenger Peggy Nash can make something of the issue.
Nash, unsurprisingly, shares their concerns. "It is, to my mind, like the big banks holding a fundraiser for the minister of finance," Nash says. "It raises ethical questions."
Sam Bulte and her campaign office continues to falsely claim to be "on the side of artists, composers, performers and producers", her actual policies speak loud and clear that she is really a supporter of the often opposing interests of publishers, recording, motion picture and "software manufacturing" industries. It is a nice slight of hand that she continues to falsely claim that the interests of her incumbent intermediary friends are compatible with the interests of creators.
Her friends are coming out to more than just here $250/plate fundraiser. I was at a candidates debate on Thursday evening and one of the first questions was from someone from the publishing industry falsely claiming to represent writers. She "simplified" her question to: "do you think writers should get paid for your work". My answer: Yes, and that is why I oppose Bulte and Bill C-60 which takes money away from creators such as authors and hands it over to increasingly outdated industry associations.
Before the debate started I overheard a Liberal supporter reading his question to a friend. He was going to ask how it is different that Bulte is hosting a fundraiser from these interests than when Peggy Nash holds a fundraiser that includes union interests in previous elections (This election she has not received any Union or Corporate donations).
There is difference to anyone who isn't a partisan Liberal supporter: Peggy Nash was not the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, was not the lead on legislation on labour, did not exclude views that were different than hers in committee hearings, and is not a potential to become the Minister of Labour. It should be obvious that Ms. Nash's ethical fundraising and Ms. Bulte's unethical fundrasing have nothing in common, and that the "friends" of a cabinet member is not remotely comparable to those of a back-bencher or opposition party member.
I spoke to Peggy Nash and other people in her campaign about it, and I trust them when they say that Ms. Nash is running to be the representative of the riding in Ottawa, not the representative of Ottawa in the riding, and that if she was running with the potential of being in a Cabinet position that she would stay clear of any such.
My letter to the editor (similar text to BLOG article)
I am a software and non-software literary author, and one of those Canadian creators that Sam Bulte falsely claims to be representing. I have spent much of my life since the start of this round of copyright revision in 2001 trying to speak with fellow Canadians and members of parliament about these issues.
Sam Bulte is one of those closed minded people who shuts out any information that disagrees with her existing ideology, and thus has shut out most independent creators whose ability to be creative depends on being able to "skip the intermediaries". It is the concentration of the cultural, creative and innovation sectors in these intermediaries, not copyright infringement, that is seem as the greatest threat to our ability to make a living at our craft.
Sam Bulte and her campaign office continue to falsely claim to be "on the side of artists, composers, performers and producers". Her policies clearly indicate that she only supports the opposing interests of publishers, recording, motion picture and "software manufacturing" industries. She relies on the fact that most people, including some creators, do not understand this area of policy. Copyright law is almost as complex and incomprehensible as tax law, which has meant that it is primarily those with a team of lawyers such as Bulte's friends who can navigate and benefit from copyright. Bulte has thus far been able to successfully but falsely claim that the interests of her incumbent intermediary friends are compatible with the interests of Canadian creators.
Her friends are coming out to more than just here $250/plate fundraiser. I was at a candidates debate on Thursday evening and one of the first questions was from someone from the publishing industry falsely claiming to represent writers. She "simplified" her question to: "do you think writers should get paid for your work". My answer: Yes, and that is why I oppose Bulte and Bill C-60 which takes money away from creators such as authors and hands it over to increasingly outdated industry associations.
Before the debate started I overheard a Liberal supporter reading his question to a friend. He was going to ask how it is different that Bulte is hosting a fundraiser from these interests than when Peggy Nash holds a fundraiser that includes union interests in previous elections (This election she has not received any Union or Corporate donations).
There is difference to anyone who isn't a partisan Liberal supporter: Peggy Nash was not the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, was not the lead on legislation on labour, did not exclude views that were different than hers in committee hearings, and is not a potential to become the Minister of Labour. It should be obvious that Ms. Nash's ethical fundraising and Ms. Bulte's unethical fundrasing have nothing in common, and that the "friends" of a cabinet member is not remotely comparable to those of a back-bencher or opposition party member.
I spoke to Peggy Nash and other people in her campaign about it, and I trust them when they say that Ms. Nash is running to be the representative of the riding in Ottawa, not the representative of Ottawa in the riding, and that if she was running with the potential of being in a Cabinet position that she would stay clear of any such.
Russell McOrmond
Webmaster for digital-copyright.ca